Appellate Court may modify maximum sentence to period undergone considering convicts' advanced age and proportionality.

On November 8, 1993, while the informant (Ramdeo Yadav) was cultivating land as a court-appointed Receiver, the appellants and others interceded.

Appellant Awadh Singh allegedly fired a rifle, while Birju Singh and Naro Singh (deceased) assaulted the informant with a *lathi* and *garasa*, causing a hand fracture and cut injuries.

The Trial Court convicted Awadh and Naro under Section 324 IPC and Birju under Section 325 IPC on November 22, 2003.

Awadh was also convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act.

The appellants challenged the conviction on grounds of non-recovery of weapons/pellets and the absence of independent witnesses.

1. Whether the prosecution successfully established the ingredients of "voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons" under Section 324 of the IPC despite the non-recovery of the firearm.

2. Whether the sentence of maximum rigorous imprisonment was justified given the nature of the injuries and the advanced age of the appellants.

The Court primarily applied Section 324 of the IPC, which penalizes voluntarily causing hurt by instruments of shooting, stabbing, or cutting.

It relied on the precedent *Anuj Singh v. State of Bihar (2022)*, which defines the essential ingredients of Section 324 IPC as voluntary hurt caused by dangerous instruments likely to cause death.

Regarding sentencing, the Court followed *State of Rajasthan v. Mohan Lal (2018)*, which mandates that sentences must be proportionate, taking into account the seriousness of the offence, the motive, and the offender's condition (deterrence vs. rehabilitation).

The Court found the convictions sound because the medical evidence (P.W.-5) and the injury report corroborated the informant’s testimony regarding "grievous injuries" caused by deadly weapons.

The Court noted that the informant was lawfully cultivating the land as a Receiver, making the appellants the aggressors.

However, regarding the sentence, the Court observed that the Trial Court failed to provide cogent reasons for imposing the maximum statutory punishment.

The Court highlighted that the primary assailant (Naro Singh) had died, and the surviving appellants, Awadh and Birju, are now approximately 80 years old and in a "senile condition".

Under the principle of proportionality, the Court determined that the lengthy 2003 sentence required modification given the passage of 20 years and the appellants' physical state.

The substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment was reduced to the period already undergone.

In lieu of further jail time, the Court imposed a fine of ₹25,000 each on Awadh Singh and Birju Singh, to be paid as compensation to the informant or his legal heirs.

Failure to pay the fine will result in one month of simple imprisonment.

The appeal was partly allowed.